Iraq News by Laurie Mylroie
The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .
II. STATEMENT OF AHMAD CHALABI, JUN 23 III. STATEMENT OF PATRICK CLAWSON, JUN 23 II. STATEMENT OF AHMAD CHALABI Testimony of Ahmad Chalabi before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee June 23, 1999 Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be here today. It has been fifteen months since I last had the honor to testify before the Foreign Relations Committee. I am proud to come before you again on behalf of the Iraqi National Congress, the voice of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi National Congress represents free Iraq and we are grateful for the help of the free people of the United States. We are particularly grateful for the assistance of the United States Senate and Congress. The Iraq Liberation Act, declaring United States' support for removing the Iraqi dictatorship, has been a beacon to the Iraqi people and we look forward to working with you closely on its implementation. The Iraqi National Congress calls upon the United States and its allies to recognize what is already fact: the United States and its allies are at war with Saddam's regime. Last summer it was proven that Saddam had ballistic missile warheads loaded with deadly VX nerve gas, an active biological weapons program, and the potential for nuclear weapons in less than a year. In August 1998, Saddam ended the last illusion of United Nations inspections as required under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991). In response, the Congress passed, and the President signed, Public Law 105-235 declaring that "the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" under the Gulf War cease-fire and empowering the President "to take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and the relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance." In finding that Saddam had broken the cease-fire and directing the President to enforce the terms of the cease-fire, this Joint Resolution in effect stated that the Gulf war was not over. Indeed, since Operation Desert Fox, over six months ago, a virtual state of war has existed between the United States and her allies, and Saddam's regime. The Iraq Liberation Act provides for significant military assistance to the Iraqi National Congress to "remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote a democratic government to replace that regime." On the 31st of October the President signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law. On November 15th, President Clinton announced that in response to Saddam's continued defiance of international law that the United States would make the removal of Saddam's regime the centerpiece of US policy towards Iraq. The Iraqi National Congress strongly welcomed this decision. On December 15th, the United States began a military assault on Iraq that continues to this day. Operation Desert Fox and the over 80 subsequent allied air-attacks using thousand of precision munitions under broad rules of engagement in the no-fly zones have severely hurt Saddam's military infrastructure. Saddam considers this war. On the fifth of this month, Iraqi Foreign Minister Sahaf formally protested to the United Nations on behalf of Saddam, that the Iraq Liberation Act was illegal and that relations with the Iraqi National Congress constituted "aggression against a sovereign state." The United States continues to recognize Saddam and Sahaf and the rest of the gang as Iraq's government. Neither the interests of neither the American nor the Iraqi people will be served by the current suggestions in the United Nations Security Council to write one more resolution, to make one more deal with Saddam's gang. We do not need yet another resolution that Saddam will violate. What we need is bold action. We believe that the United States should take the following steps immediately: -Protect the Iraqi people from Saddam's massive repression and ease their suffering through a large-scale program of direct humanitarian assistance that bypasses the regime. -Broaden the rules of engagement for US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over much of Iraq to make all of Saddam's military forces targets. -Help the Iraqi National Congress to develop an alternative to the regime and assist us, including all the brave Iraqis fighting Saddam inside the country. The Iraqi people need protection from Saddam's depredations. Saddam's behavior since the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act has been dictated by his preparations to deal with the consequences of the Act. He has increased repression in all parts of the country because of his perception of the threat he faces and his quest to avert danger. He has divided the country into four parts and appointed close members of his inner circle as military governors with unlimited powers. He has massed troops against Iraqi Kurdistan in order to threaten the people of the north. He has assigned his son Qusay to lead a campaign of mass arrests and repression in the south while his secret services continue to attack Shia religious leaders. This culminated in the recent murder of the highly respected Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Al-Sadr. The spontaneous demonstrations that broke out all over Iraq after Ayatollah Sadr's murder were squashed with Saddam's customary brutality with hundreds of deaths in Baghdad and other cities of Iraq. In addition, over a thousand politica1 prisoners have been executed in the so-called "Prison Cleansing Campaign". The rules of engagement for allied pilots over Iraq have been significantly broadened in the past year from simply intercepting aircraft in violation of the no-fly zones to targeting air defense and command and control facilities. We ask that the rules of engagement be further broadened to include units of Saddam's military that are being deployed against the Iraqi people. This will enhance protection of the Iraqi people while further diminishing Saddam's apparatus of control. US officials have said that attacking Iraqi Kurdistan would lead to military action. We ask for this undertaking to be spelled out clearly. Saddam should know in no uncertain terms that he would be prevented from crossing the line into all liberated areas of Iraq in the north. Specifically, a statement would be made to warn against moving into areas below the 36th parallel which are not part of the no fly zones. Many brave Iraqis, associated with the INC, are resisting the dictatorship on the ground inside Iraq, particularly in the south. They are in contact with the Iraqi National Congress and they need support. They are looking to get equipment and training through the INC under the Iraq Liberation Act. Indeed they need all kinds of support to resist the predatory dictatorship. With the assistance of the US Government, the Iraqi National Congress has held four meetings of its Executive Council beginning with the meeting in Windsor, England on April 7-8 which was attended by representatives of the Clinton Administration and the Congress. My colleagues and I were also very pleased to welcome your colleague Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. At the Windsor meeting, the Executive Council elected a seven-member interim presidency to lead the INC until the expanded Iraqi National Assembly meeting in July elects a new leadership. The Windsor meeting also reaffirmed the unity of the Iraqi opposition and all the members of the INC reaffirmed their commitments to the principles of democracy, pluralism, federalism and respect for human rights. The Windsor meeting was followed-up by the visit of an INC delegation to the United Nations. We have been vigorous in reaching out to Iraqis of all groups opposed Saddam throughout the world. Also, an expanded delegation of the Iraqi opposition made a successful visit to Washington in May. With the assistance of the US Government we have reactivated our campaign to focus attention on the crimes of Saddam and to maintain his international isolation. Frank Ricciardone, the State Department's Special Coordinator for Transition in Iraq, continues to work tirelessly to help us in our quest to push forward the agenda of the united Iraqi opposition and my colleagues and I commend his efforts. He already has notable successes to his credit among the Iraqi opposition. Also, he has visited several countries in the region to explain US policy. Unfortunately the position of some of the regional states towards Saddam's regime remains ambiguous. We say to our neighbors in the region that we stand for the unity of Iraq while Saddam has divided the country. We urge them to recognize that the suppressed talents and good will of the Iraqi people must be released from the tyranny of Saddam to ensure the peace and prosperity of the region. Most of our Arab neighbors enjoy very special relations with the United States, they must not begrudge us such relations. We look to the US to help the Iraqi people rid themselves from the scourge of Saddam and establish democracy in Iraq. Our neighbors have nothing to fear from a democratic Iraq. We have called for a plenary session of the Iraqi National Assembly in July. This body is the ultimate authority of the INC. The July meeting will expand the INC and elect leadership for the future. In the absence of firm security guarantees from the United States and its allies, we, unfortunately, are not able to hold this meeting on Iraqi soil as we did in Salahuddin in 1992. The INC Executive Council has made a request to the Secretary of State to hold the meeting in Washington. Similar requests have been made to a number of Arab and European governments. Kurdish reconciliation has been a fundamental step in the efforts to energize and unite the opposition. We commend the US Government's role in brokering the Washington Agreement between the KDP and the PUK. We hope that the Washington Agreement will be implemented fully and we commend Ambassador Beth Jones' leadership role in the current negotiations between the Kurdish parties. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier it is time for bold action. It is time to call Saddam to account for his war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. We need the support of the United States and other friends of the Iraqi people to act in the United Nations to convene a commission of inquiry into the crimes of Saddam's regime. Secretary of State Christopher told an INC delegation in April 1993 that the United States supports the creation of such a commission and the Iraq Liberation Act addresses at length the indictment of Saddam Hussein and other war criminals in his regime. Perhaps the next session of the UN General Assembly in the autumn will be the appropriate place to pursue this. US leadership on this issue is essential. We are pleased to note the US support of INDICT, the leading organization campaigning on this issue. We are encouraged by the statements of National Security Advisor Berger to our delegation in which he said that the United Sates is determined to help the Iraqi people remove Saddam and is working diligently to achieve this noble aim. We have had initial contacts with US military officials to discuss the commencement of drawdown assistance to the INC under the Iraq Liberation Act. We look forward to the time when this materiel and training can be used by the forces opposing Saddam on the ground in Iraq. We recognize that there is an urgent need for training and we are ready to commence training immediately. The Iraqi National Congress recognizes that the problems of post- Saddam Iraq will be immense and complicated. But Iraq is a rich country both in oil, water and talent and can stand on its own feet after the fall of the dictatorship. A significant part of the credibility of the INC lies in our ability to persuade the international community that we have plausible plans for dealing with the problems of Iraq in the political, constitutional, economic, administrative and security fields. We are working with Iraqi and international experts to develop and refine our plans in all those fields. We appreciate the assistance and encouragement that the US has given us in these areas. However, development of the post-Saddam agenda is no substitute to an active program to replace the tyranny in Iraq. The Iraqi people are calling upon us to be in the forefront of the effort to liberate our country. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the Foreign Relations Committee again. I assure the US Congress and the US people of our gratitude for your support in our struggle to end the suffering of our people and to live in peace and freedom. III. STATEMENT OF PATRICK CLAWSON What Role for the Iraqi Opposition? Patrick Clawson Director for Research, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy June 10, 1999 While NATO aircraft have been bombing Yugoslavia, American combat aircrews have also been engaged in another conflict, namely, a quiet low-intensity war against Iraq. The differences between the two theaters are many, not the least of which is the ultimate American goal. The United States appears ready to live with Slobodan Milosevic, whereas U.S. policy is now that Saddam Husayn must go. It took a long time to come to this determination. Only after Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 did the Clinton administration decide that regime change is necessary, rather than just desirable. Regime change is no easy goal; the prospects for success are uncertain. However, by publicly identifying regime change as a policy objective, the United States has already put its prestige on the line. >From now on, the world will use a simple test to judge the success orfailure of U.S. policy towards Iraq, namely, is Saddam still in power? Saddam has already outlasted one U.S. president (George Bush); it would not serve U.S. interests well if he outlasted another. The policy of promoting regime change is not one that should be done half-way: it should either be quietly buried or be put at the center of all U.S. actions towards Iraq. And the simple fact is that success depends upon the vigor with which the policy is pursued: regime change is a realistic goal if Washington puts itself behind the effort, but it is not realistic if Washington sits back to await others making it happen. The U.S. government should therefore devote vigorous effort to regime change, rather than presenting regime change as a long-term aim with the implication that in the short run, little will be done to promote it. It is in this context that we should consider the role for the Iraqi opposition. Some see support for the opposition as the only element necessary to achieve success in Iraq. This approach is unrealistic. The opposition is unlikely anytime soon to create a military force capable of defeating Saddam Husayn, even if supported with American air power. Others see support of the opposition primarily as a way to strengthen the containment of Iraq--limiting its ability to threaten its neighbors and to develop weapons of mass destruction. This approach is insufficiently ambitious, and it does not acknowledge the need to take risks to change the regime in Baghdad before Saddam rebuilds his weapons of mass destruction or containment collapses. Supporting the Opposition as Part of a Multi-Faceted Policy Replacing Saddam requires harnessing the potential inherent in the four principal policy levers the United States holds--military action, covert operations, reducing Saddam's unsupervised oil income, and support for the opposition. No one of these policies by itself is sufficient to achieve the objective of regime change. Taken together, however, synergy among them creates the best conditions for the overthrow of Saddam Husayn, as well as reinforcing the containment of Iraq. U.S. military action can facilitate regime change, especially when it targets the regime's internal security apparatus. That apparatus is the main obstacle to overthrowing Saddam Husayn; there is no shortage of potential coup plotters or rebels. An air campaign that disrupts the key security organizations communications and forces them to focus on their own survival and not that of the regime increases the chances that a coup or uprising will succeed. Moreover, new strikes might cause Saddam to lash out verbally against Arab governments and Turkey (as he did after Desert Fox), deepening his political isolation, while reducing Iraq's ability to militarily threaten its neighbors thereby bolstering containment. Covert action (with an emphasis on psychological operations) could diminish Saddam's image in the eyes of his supporters, exacerbate already strained relations between Saddam Husayn's inner circle and the military, and stir up popular discontent against the regime. These could lay the ground-work for a coup or uprising. At the very least, these efforts would keep Saddam on the defensive and force him to divert assets to deal with internal security, leaving fewer resources available for clandestine technology procurement or trouble-making elsewhere. This will also bolster containment. Reducing Iraq's unsupervised oil income--amounting to several hundred million dollars a year--cuts into Saddam's ability to buy loyalty. Financial hardship could aggravate existing tensions among the various Sunni tribal groups that form the bedrock of Saddam's power base and foment unrest among these elements. The flow of unsupervised income could be cut by renewed efforts to halt illicit Iraqi oil sales via Syria and Turkey, to wean Jordan off Iraqi oil, and to stop kickback schemes under the "oil for food" program. Less unsupervised oil income also means less money for illicit arms purchases, which reinforces containment. Support for the opposition is the clearest expression of America's commitment to regime change. Such support--especially when given publicly and endorsed by top officials--fosters the impression that the tide is turning against Saddam. It also undercuts the conspiratorial view in parts of the Arab world that the United States really wants a weakened Saddam Husayn to remain in power. Only when Washington demonstrates its high-level support for the opposition can it effectively lobby regional governments to do the same. The more the United States supports the opposition, the more regional governments will be confident that Saddam will in fact go and that therefore they can assist the opposition without facing eventual Iraqi retaliation. Plus, regional governments are more likely to support actions to tighten the containment of Iraq if they need not worry that Saddam will be around to exact revenge. Some who would strictly limit U.S. support for the opposition belittle its chances of accomplishing much. To be sure, the opposition is unlikely to defeat Saddam's forces in the field. But that is largely irrelevant. The issue is what must be done to crack the aura of invincibility around Saddam and his repressive apparatus. If Saddam's security organizations are spending their time worrying about the opposition, they will have fewer resources to repress outbreaks of the seething popular discontent. If emboldened protestors began to act on a wide scale, an active opposition could catalyze and coordinate an uprising, making what otherwise would be a riot into a regime- threatening rebellion. Similarly, the busier that Saddam's security organizations are chasing the organized opposition and spontaneous protestors, the less they can do to detect and stop coup plotters. Plus containment is strengthened when Saddam diverts time and resources from the regular military to deal with the opposition--either because the opposition is successful or because the loud U.S. support for the opposition makes Saddam afraid. Specific Measures To Increase Support for the Opposition Over the last six months, the United States has stepped up its support for the opposition, but the support remains low key and a secondary aspect of U.S. Iraqi policy. A good indicator of where opposition support fits into overall U.S. Iraqi policy is how the opposition leaders were treated during their recent visit to Washington compared to their reception in April 1993. Six years ago, the opposition leaders saw the Vice-President in the White House. This time, when the opposition had been broadened to include monarchists and prominent Sunnis like ex-Foreign Minister Adnan Pacachi, the opposition leaders saw the Secretary of State--even though the administration had for months been telling the opposition that the more broadly they united, the higher the U.S. officials who would see them. These distinctions matter to Saddam, to Middle East countries, and to the Arab public. It will be interesting to see whether President Clinton sends greetings to the upcoming meeting of the opposition Iraqi National Assembly, and if so how, warm will they be. Similarly, on the operational front, the opposition has been unsuccessfully asking the United States to publicly commit itself to strict enforcement of the existing UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions, especially UNSC Resolution 949 which authorizes use of force if Iraq "takes any action to enhance its military capacity in southern Iraq"--the so-called "no-drive zone" resolution. In fact, the United States has rarely used the authority granted by this resolution to hit at the tanks and other equipment Saddam has added to his forces in the south for the purpose of hitting the opposition. In the north, the Kurdish groups want to know what President Clinton meant when he said that we "remain ready to use [forcel if Saddam moves against the Kurds." Specifically, the Kurdish groups want a guarantee that America will retaliate if Saddam attacks the Kurds in retaliation for the opposition National Assembly meeting in the north. The Clinton administration has announced that it will begin using the $97 million in drawdown authority contained in the Iraq Liberation Act. Throughout the Middle East, not least of all in Iraq, close attention will be paid to what kind of assistance is provided under the drawdown program. Assistant Secretary Indyk has said, "to arm the Iraqi opposition... is premature." Let us define a roadmap to "maturity." Will the administration approach the opposition to identify what must be done before arms distribution is appropriate to develop a plan that includes specific steps each side will take to permit U.S. militarv aid so that the opposition can expand the scope of its on-going military operations? And in the meantime, there is the issue of what kind of non-lethal equipment to give the opposition, that is, whether to provide what are in essence relief supplies or instead equipment designed to make the opposition more dangerous to Saddam. A good barometer is how much communication equipment and training is included. Better communications would let the opposition report in real time on about what is happening in Iraq. The opposition could then identify when Saddam is moving reinforcements into the no-drive zone or the Kurdish area, facilitating U.S. retaliation. The ability to communicate and coordinate between different regions and cities could allow the news of unrest in one town to spark unrest elsewhere, increasing the prospect that the seething discontent will erupt in riots. In sum, what is "prudent and effective"--the words President Clinton used in his December speech to the nation to describe how America will support the opposition--is to put the full weight of the U.S. government behind that policy to which we have committed our prestige, namely, regime change. Integrating vigorous support for the opposition with well planned military action, covert operations, and reductions in illegal oil income will increase the prospects for ending Saddam Husayn's rule soon, plus it will also bolster containment. The support for the opposition should steadily increase as the opposition matures, with the United States always pushing the process forward rather than lagging behind.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
